Logos(Deus é logos)

VIEW:413 DATA:2020-03-20

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

"kai o logos",

• logos - word (idea, mind) express thought. Theos -
• God - (from heaven, heavenly). logos was heavenly, from heaven.

Eliom (very high). Yehoshua (logos) is theos, (from heaven), Elion is theos (from heaven), however, Elion is Most High from heaven, and yehoshua is not Elion, but both are from heaven (theos).
So God is Theos, and theos has the original meaning of (from heaven), that is, every time we speak theos, we are referring to heaven. God (theos) is a word that means from heaven. El, means the main axis of several, elohim is already the whole tree with its branches, so if we use the new testament, we are using theos (from heaven), we are saying that Yehoshua is from heaven, theos is the meaning of divine, so the text says that yehoshua is theos, that is to say it is divine. What I am saying is that among (theos) 's there is one that is Elion, (the highest), and if one is the highest, then the others are not like that.
Yehoshua is (theos) because it comes from heaven, the term has this meaning, what to pass on is not translation is belief. When we have the term Php 2: 6 which, subsisting in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God something to be clung to,

So Yehoshua is God but we cannot say " God Himself ", the term God is status status. Like all the terms in question. Yehoshua is properly God, that is to say, he has the properties to name, see Yehoshua is Yeh - yowsha (Yeh - salvo), Yehowa is applied to an angel, so the one who saves can be Yehoshua himself. So that Yehoshua is put as Yehowa. So whether Yehoshua is put as Yehowa is another factor of doubt, and that each one chooses his position. The only unique term for a being is Elion, apart from this all others are applied to more than one being.
When analyzing another text we have.
Joh 5:18 Therefore, therefore, the Jews sought even more to kill him, because he not only violated the Sabbath, but also said that God was his own Father, making himself equal to God.
In this verse we have the same term, but when reading in Greek we have:
ίσος (isos), which has the same similar meaning, celestial (theos). Where this similarity is defined and where it is not defined it also enters a belief system.
About worshiping Yehoshua did not forbid anyone to worship him, since there are several moments when such a thing happened.
When we read:
Luk_4: 8 Jesus answered him, It is written: You will worship the Lord your God, and you will serve Him alone.
Where this (and only you will serve), we have (αυτωG846 P-DSM μονωG3441 A-DSM λατρευσειςG3000 V-FAI-2S), monos and laureareisit comes from single honor, or single glory. A special kind of glory. This does not violate the idea that the one who has been given glory ceases to be glorified, but that there are different ways and that the one applied to God is unique.
On the question of master of Toha, Yehosua is Lord of Toha, this only if when being master of the Sabbath, therefore be of similar terms, and master of all, inside and outside Toha, seen alterations violated to Toha and taught by Yehoshua ,
About the term lawyer we have (παράκλητος - parakletos), which has a direct meaning as an intercessor, a lawyer has the idea of ​​an intercessor, but is linked to a possibility of judgment, conviction or acquittal. Yehoshua is an intercessor as a priest, a priest ministering the people's connection with Elohim, but he does not work as a lawyer in all his functions, but only as the representative priestly connection.

G3056 - λόγος - logos -log'-os
From G3004; something said (including thinking); by implication a theme (discourse theme), also justification (the faculty mind) or motive; by extension, computing; Specifically (with the article in John) the divine expression (ie, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X Relatively, the doctrine, the fame, X have to do, the intention, the matter, the mouth, the preaching , the question, the reason, + tell, remove say (ing), announce, X speaker, speak, speak, thing, + none of these things move me, news, treatise, word, word, work. ¹ .

John 1 is linked to Proverbs 8: 22-34, in it we have: Pro 8:22 The Lord created me as the first of his works, the principle of his oldest deeds. - Pro 8:24 Before there were chasms, I was generated, and even before there were sources full of water.When he says (Because He is the Only Begotten God and One with the Father (John 1:18; 10: 30-33), Yeshua was worshiped and accepted worship several times), Worship occurs because it is a celestial entity, every celestial entity is considered God. (from the sky). And of course the man adores him, it is necessary for the entity to say not to worship. So it cannot be said that (Because he is the Only Begotten God and One with the Father), he was worshiped, but that he was worshiped for being considered from heaven (theos). On the question of Son of God, no one is aware of what this analogy is, with the terrestrial representation. Thus Son of God is a term and its mentalization depends on the vision of different religions. It cannot be said whether Son of God is a poetic description or something really physical, since defining birth from God does not have much real analysis.

Quando lemos o verso João 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος João 1: 1), the text is poetic. (εν αρχη ην ο λογος), defining the comparative personification of Yehoshua with (λογος). Logos (λογος) are in the form as meaning, defining an abstraction, being an abstract term personalized to Yehoshua. Themes of continuity ( E luz resplandece nas trevas, e as trevas n ao a compreenderam. João 1: 5), personifying the darkness, the literary characteristic of John 1, is the poetic form alluding to a personification. Defining physical reaction poetry is quite impossible to do. See that Jesus is the Son of God, it is a poetic analysis, God got married ?, Who is the woman of God? How does pregnancy occur in the divine generation? Does God have children like a cell? Or does God raise his children? The poetry in the bible is a constant. Lazaro sleeps? Or is Lazaro dead? Prov. 8 defines the personification of wisdom. As well as the personification of the Word (λογος). When we read ( From eternity I was anointed, from the beginning, before the beginning of the earth. Proverbs 8:23), we can understand the meaning of divine anointing from eternity, defining a character by its personification, or idealize that it is a crazy text for no reason. The personification of wisdom, like the personification of the Word (λογος), are connecting factors to the being that personification is adapted. This is not only related to John 1, but it is permeated throughout the Bible, the use of poetic forms to define things that possibly would be difficult in physical analysis or perhaps impossible to understand. A good Bible translator can understand that poetry and reality in the Bible have an extremely great connection.

Elohim is not defined in the form as a being, but the sum of the beings that come from El, without being an object of accounting. All things are part of the initial El, and all the things that work according to El's will, are determined by El with Elohim. But even El must be separated by El Elion, or El Altíssimo, or El that is above other El's. In the case Yehoshua can be in the class of Elohim connected to the priests when they fulfill the will of El Elion, or El in the sense of being the presence of El Elion, even so, in practice Yehoshua should be worshiped as the entity that has the fullness of Divinity. ( Col 2: 9 because in him the entire fullness of divinity dwells bodily,). Anyway, in practice Yehoshua is considered God with the same authority as El Elion, because his connection with El Elion is extreme. So in practice Yehoshua is God at the highest point of analysis. John 1: 1 determines this practical factor, while there is a slight difference in origin, in practice that difference disappears. The mind of God, or Wisdom of God, is personified in Yehoshua, and that personification must be Adored as being El Elion himself.

What is divine? Divine is all that is sanctified. The image of power, energy is only an illusory factor for human imagination, since the divine is invisible. So anything sanctified is divine. The divine body is a sanctified (separate) body. Thus Yehoshua's body is divine at the moment that it is sanctified, and it does not need to change its shape, or appear to be of fire, or whatever idea of ​​power an individual can imagine. Divine power is not something visible. Something can be divine and seem extremely common. On average, religions like to imagine power, or other things. All the things that exist are parts of El Elion, that is, they are all divine parts because they come from something divine. There is nothing that does not come from El Elion, and everything can return to El Elion. All things are connected in it, and he knows everything because everything is him. Divine is the characteristic of El Elion in determining the eternal things of passengers. A person who will be eternal is divine because he will not be fleeting. A being that will be erased will return to the originator to follow the norms of the originator. So Yehoshua's body is divine at the moment when such a body is determined to be holy, he is divine, even if there is no lightning, or fire, or whatever you want to imagine.

The question is not who or what you divine, the question is that anything is fundamentally divine. So to say that Yehoshua's body is not divine, he first needs to know if he has not been sanctified. The question is not what I think, or what I think is divine. The question is what is defined as divine. The definition of divine is the same as that relating to God. In other words, it comes from Heaven. In majority terms everything comes from Heaven. ( 2Pe_1: 4 for which he has given us his precious and immense promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that exists in the world through lust.) So divine is not something you see or find. Divine is the determination to be. What I find or fail to find has no effect on what is divine, since everything is divine in macro vision, and in divine micro vision it is that posed as divine determination. By the originating entity.
What would it be like to be divine? ( Rom_1: 20 For its invisible attributes, its eternal power and divinity, are clearly seen since the creation of the world, being perceived through the created things, so that they are inexcusable; ). It is not what we think is divine that defines itself divine ( Act_17: 29 As we, therefore, the generation of God, we must not think that the divinity is similar to gold, or silver, or the stone carved by the art and imagination of man .). The divine is anything determined, see ( Psa 82: 1 God is in the divine assembly; he judges among the gods:) , so there is a divine assembly. Showing that the divine context is not tied to what man considers divine body. Thus divine is a relative question and man cannot define what is divine or not, without proper information.
Yehoshua is an adored Father, Yehoshua is not (θεου πατρος) (theos pater), (God the Father) or (Heavenly Father). Since ( Isa 9: 6 Because a boy was born to us, a son gave himself to us; and the government will be on his shoulders; and his name will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. ), How it is possible to define Yehoshua as Father, and it is granted that they worship him, he can be defined as Adored Father. (Heb_1: 6 And again, when he introduces the firstborn into the world, he says: And all the angels of God worship him. ). But as (θεου πατρος) (theos pater) does not occur, neither does El Elion (God most high). As unique terms are disseminated to different entities so that beings feel similar, there is a need for a descriptive or adjective to isolate. If you say God, you don't know who you're talking about. If you speak to YHWH, you do not know who is speaking, as it is applied to an angel. But El Elion, and (θεου πατρος) (theos pater), are unique adjectives.

But back to the text in João, the poetic idea is that Yehoshua is placed as the personification of the mind of (θεος), Placed as a popular term as (God), as an originating term (heaven), I use the originator. So when I say (God), at the moment that there is Yehoshua, which in theory I would not call Yehoshua at the time. These two entities that in the period would be nameless, would be (θεος), either united or separated, seen (elohim), coming from the idea of ​​a tree. So both are (elohim). This is the way to analyze the forms of organization of the text. It resembles trinity contexts, but does not define the bases for trinity, since (elohim) is above three beings, and used for other beings. {ps. I am not defining that ruach kadesh is a being} {I am also not defining that it is not}, I am just defining that (elohim) is applied to different beings. So the text of John 1: 1 balances itself with the biblical context, without launching any concept contrary to the scriptures. Thus (θεος ην ο λογος), God was the word. Knowing that (θεος), in the sense of elohim, they understood in the beginning of two beings. The text itself defines (αρχη), principle as the starting point of the verse. He asks if, (λογος) the word personified existed before the beginning? This text does not shed light on this question. If the text of Proverbs 8 is linked to this personification, it sheds light that (λογος) the word personified appeared in the beginning, and not before him. Thus defining the connection defines an answer and without the connection there is only doubt. in the sense of elohim they understood at the beginning of two beings. The text itself defines (αρχη), principle as the starting point of the verse. He asks if, (λογος) the word personified existed before the beginning? This text does not shed light on this question. If the text of Proverbs 8 is linked to this personification, it sheds light that (λογος) the word personified appeared in the beginning, and not before him. Thus defining the connection defines an answer and without the connection there is only doubt. in the sense of elohim they understood at the beginning of two beings. The text itself defines (αρχη), principle as the starting point of the verse. He asks if, (λογος) the word personified existed before the beginning? This text does not shed light on this question. If the text of Proverbs 8 is linked to this personification, it sheds light that (λογος) the word personified appeared in the beginning, and not before him. Thus defining the connection defines an answer and without the connection there is only doubt. and not before him. Thus defining the connection defines an answer and without the connection there is only doubt. and not before him. Thus defining the connection defines an answer and without the connection there is only doubt.

When we read the genealogy in Luke, we have parents and children and we have the following text ( Luke 3:38 And Cainan of Enos, and Enos of Seven, and Seven of Adam, and Adam of God.) In this order, parents and children are marked in the text denoting Adam as the son of God. Let us then idealize the fateful concept of being a child of God. How does God make children? In the case of Adam it was made of clay, having the breath of life. So ideologically speaking, defining Yehoshua as Son we have a similarity to the term son and we would have to have a similarity to the son fact. Not being poetic. In Lucas, the norm of affiliation is certainly fateful. In other words, Cainã is Son of Enos. And Enos son of Sete. And so Adam the son of God. Therefore Yehoshua son of God. So in a biblical text what is a child of God? And the one in which God declares as Father. (John 20:17 Jesus said to him, Do not stop me, because I have not yet gone up to my father, but go to my brothers, and tell them that I go up to my Father and your Father, my God and your God. ) The issue of children involved in the ideology of the Jews was linked to the desire to crucify Jesus, and not a factor of reason. See in this case. (John 10:33 The Jews replied, "We are not going to stone you for any good work, but for blasphemy, because you are a simple man and you present yourself as God." John 10:34 Jesus answered them: It is not written in the Law of you: "I said, are you gods" [55]? John 10:35 If he called "Gods" to those to whom the word of God came (and Scripture cannot be annulled), John 10:36 what to say about it of whom the Father sanctified and sent to the world? So why do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, I am the Son of God?) What is written in this verse? Who went to stone Jesus, saying that he was calling himself God, Jesus says that the Bible says that they are God, and Jesus is only the son of God. Why would they stone someone who claims to be a son and does not claim to be God? They should therefore stone them who are described as God, and not someone who does not claim to be God, but only claims to be a son. So Jesus was showing that being a son is less blasphemous than being God. To conclude let's look at the verse. What God says ( Psalm 82: 6 "I said: You are gods, you are all children of the Most High). So Yehoshua did not define any blasphemy, but the Jews sought to find a pseudo excuse to be able to kill Yehoshua. Nothing pronounced or described in the New Testament would accuse Yehoshua of blasphemy under the Old Testament. See that Yehoshua did not break the Sabbath, nor did he make himself equal to God. So John 5:18 issues the hypocritical opinion of the Jews and not an actual fact. Seeing the text ( Matthew 19:16 And, behold, a young man approached him and said to him, Good Master, what good will I do to obtain eternal life? Matthew 19:17 And he said to him, Why do you call me good? "There is no good but one, which is God. If, however, you want to enter life, keep the commandments.), by any chance is this a text by someone who wants to say that he is equal to God? Of course not. Thus Yehoshua at no time became God, taking on himself the characteristic of Son.

The first question is to define who came first, the Greek version, or the Aramaic version of the New Testament. If Aramaic then meltra (Aramaic), it has the word meaning, as something written, or in a written form. Now if we are considering Greek as the original source of an Aramaic manuscript, then the analysis is involved in the Greek term and not in Aramaic. Logos come from logia, every term with log has a sense of mind, and logos is what comes out of the mind, the idea transformed. Heraclitus of Ephesus In 500 BC Christ defined Logos as the term for the principle of wisdom. Solfistas use it as speech or speech. Aristotelians define it as reason, and the Stoics as divine animation. The word as a normal written form is lexis (λέξις), both logos and lexis come from legō (λέγω), which is the expression of the mind by the quick form, in this case speech.². Logos was the term to define wisdom in its universal context. The idea of ​​the personification of Logos comes from Heraclitus who says "Hear not to me, but to logos she is wise to agree that all things are one." Heraclitus. Stoics started with Zeno of Citium c. 300 BC, defines that logos are the active reason that moves the universe. It is the active mind that permeates and life. Stoics determine the meaning of logos as the mind of God that lives through inanimate bodies and generates movement. This was the ideology of Logos at the time of John. But if we are saying that the origin is Aramaic, Aramaic does not carry all this Greek culture on the ideology that logos is the Wisdom of God. So if the original of the Greek is the Aramaic that we have today, then we define only the word,

We must understand that everything comes from within, or only from God, as there is no outside of God, defining that logos (Yehoshua) comes from within God is a redundancy, but what is the formation of logos. Therefore, another word close to logos is necessary, which is logical. And this is often the big difference that I notice, is that I don't accept faith without logic. For example Miltha / Memra (Hebrew / Aramaic) or Logos (Greek), cannot be the same since all words are linked to the foundation of the region in which they are formed. When making a translation, you have to be aware of the origin and who wrote it, and which language you used, there is in this positioning characteristic, the real way to understand a text. Without which, any form of ideology can be accepted. The number of logic errors in using the Portuguese translation of a Hebrew or Greek language, generates thousands of interpretation errors, just for using a word formed in one culture, using another word in another culture. For word is not just translation, word is involved in connections, and almost never a word from one people, makes the same connections as the word in another people. It is necessary to know the people, to know the language of a people, and their connections to know the real meaning of a word.
Take for example. In Hebrew we have the concept of love, אהבה - 'ahabah - a-hab-aw', in Hebrew love is only one form. In Greek we have three forms. Agape, Fileu, and Eros. If we consider the analysis of Hebrew, idealism should translate every sense of love as one of the three. For in Hebrew there is no distinction. In this verse we have, for example, files (John 11: 3 The sisters then said to Jesus, Lord, behold, the one whom you love is sick. ) ( Rev 3:19 I rebuke and chasten all those I love: be zealous therefore , and repent. ). In this next ( Rom 12:10 Love each other cordially with brotherly love, preferring you in honor of each other; ), we have a form of Greek application for the modifications of Fileos. In this we have agape (1Jn 4: 8 He who does not love does not know God; because God is love. ), which is the most used.
The resourcefulness as love in Greek is determined, separated from the context of love in Hebrew, demonstrates to the writer resourcefulness in the knowledge of the language and its applicability in the due sectors of textual ideology.
Reading the Greek scriptures shows that the writer does not write "Hebrew" Greek, but a Greek with a deep knowledge of the language. Using the ideology of Greek writing to write, not the ideology of Hebrew or Aramaic.
Paul still clearly uses Greek culture, "Act 17:23 For as I passed and observed the objects of your worship, I also found an altar on which it was written: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. This, then, that you honor without knowing it, is what I announce to you. "
When we have the term logos, for Yehoshua we have a unique characteristic of John, containing in John and a verse in Revelation (revelations) ( Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. )
The application of logos to the proposed ideology is unique in John. This term does not connect with Hebrew culture or Aramaic. Apart from John’s ideology, every word of God is applied to scripture, whether in the old or new testament.
Knowing that the biblical scripture of the New Testament has the resourcefulness of knowledge of the Greek language, in depth in relation to its connections, the only ideology is that John was using Greek ideology in relation to logos, to form the bridge of connection of logos in relation to divine formation.
If we are going to use Hebrew ideology to define John 1, we will not define it because there would be no Hebrew ideology or connection for such a definition. The form "θεος ην ο λογος", "God is the word", there is no connection in any form of Hebrew ideology, in which God is the word. This ideology only exists in connection with Greek culture. Not Greek religious culture. It is the philosophical question of Logos. When we use love, between files, eros, and agape, we are linked in Greek philosophy. See eros was considered a god for the Greeks, but the philosophy of the word eros does not work with religion, it involves connections with the forms of action of the term eros. So Logos has a Greek philosophy on the word.
Heraclitus of Ephesus, does not use the ideology of logos as religion, but the philosophy of using the term logos, as well as Zeno of Citium, are philosophers who analyze the sciences and logic, not theology. For example, Greek philosophers defined that all things are composed of atoms, is that religion? Of course not. At the time of John, Greek culture was familiar with the ideology of Logos as a driving force in the universe, by analyzing the factors surrounding the word Logos. Logos is used as a word, but in the same way as the term "love", which unfolds in several philosophical concepts of abstraction, and which are in fact real. João's point of view on logos only has a logic of existence if it is linked to the philosophy of the word logos on its implications.


1Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries - Dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek Words taken from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance by James Strong, STD, LL.D., 1890.
2 Handboek geschiedenis van de wijsbegeerte 1, Article by Jaap Mansveld & Keimpe Algra, P41